I agree with most of that; in fact, I've said similar things myself. I guess I just want anyone to be able to distinguish science that came from actual experim

I agree with most of that; in fact, I've said similar things myself. I guess I just want anyone to be able to distinguish science that came from actual experiments run by honest scientists from pseudoscience that came from people just making stuff up and faking results. I mean, that shouldn't be a very high bar, but it's actually pretty hard to meet when you think about it. Respected scientists can get away with faking results for years sometimes. As for technocrats: I find it hard to trust anyone who thinks their policy positions are simply the result of direct application of pure logic. That's not how it works. Logic and science can help you arrive at a policy position once you decide what your goals and priorities are, but different people have different goals and priorities, and those aren't determined by logic. Maybe there are some good technocrats out there, but to me it seems like their goals and priorities tend to somehow always gravitate towards the goals and priorities of lobbyists, think tanks, and wealthy people generally. Maximize shareholder value and don't rock the boat.